The Limits of the Truth

Question :

What do you do with what you know? Is it sufficient to answer what you are asked or to reveal everything that you know about a particular situation? To what degree does context matter? Imagine that you are engaged by a law firm to examine evidence for the defence. You uncover evidence that does not help your client's case which was not discovered by the prosecution. Later in court you are asked a question that will reveal this evidence if answered fully and truthfully. What will be your response? Do you opt for full disclosure, or do you try to evade the question?

Answer :

The Limits of the Truth

Presenting truth is a very tough task but not impossible. In the given scenario, it is a very tough task to present the truth because presenting truth in the given scenario would not help the case of the client. If the truth cannot help the case of the client, presenting the truth in the court of law is not useful. However, it is a moral duty to let the court of law know the truth that has been uncovered (Stowe, 2019). But it is also the duty of the concerned person to present only those facts that can help the client. Thus, the concerned person should reveal the fact partially in order to make the court aware of the uncover fact because it is the right of the court of law to know the evidence that has been uncovered. 

There are different perspectives from which an uncovered fact could be presented before the court of law. It is important to keep in mind that the context of the fact is very important. If the evidence is not related to the context in question, either it should not be revealed or if it is to be revealed, it should be revealed partially because it would not help the client. Therefore, considering the context of the evidence is very important before presenting the evidence. Apart from the context, the order of the court is also of utmost importance and it is the duty of every individual to obey the order of the court of law (Santa Ana, 2019). Thus, if the court of law is asking to reveal the evidence that has been uncovered, it should be revealed. Moreover, the importance and usefulness of the evidence are also important to consider before presenting the evidence in the court of law because if the evidence is not useful, presenting it in the court of law is useless as it would not lead to an effective conclusion (Sweeney, 2018). 

References

Santa Ana, O. (2019). The senator’s discriminatory intent: Presenting probative legal evidence of unconstitutional verbal animus. Language, Culture and Society, 1(2), 168-193.

Stowe, H. B. (2019). A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin: Presenting the original facts and documents upon which the story is founded. Together with corroborative statements verifying the truth of the work. Good Press.

Sweeney, J. A. (2018). The elusive right to truth in transitional human rights jurisprudence. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 67(2), 353-387.